Varg Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 I've just found out that some of the first churches were built on sacred pagan ground. I'd like to see any of you justify that.
jiyoung Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Are you referring to it being built on pagan grounds, or on grounds which were sacred for pagans?
jonyelmony Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Are you really concerned about this now? This is the form of early Ecnumism that everyone was into.
Servus_Mariae Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 05:08 AM' timestamp='1256202526' post='1989584'] I've just found out that some of the first churches were built on sacred pagan ground. I'd like to see any of you justify that. [/quote] What makes pagan ground sacred? What makes Catholic ground sacred? I trust you would deem yourself a rationalist devoid of any theistic faith...if this is the case than there is no justification to satisfy you. However, bearing in mind the credibility of faith, the justification is simple. Catholicism bear the fullness of divine revelation and thus has the right and duty to preserve it in its purity. This being the case, pagan ground is not sacred in that it offers distortion of divine revelation and consequently its notion of sacrality is in itself distorted. Reversing the question, what makes ground "common" or secular? I trust you would have no problem with a Cathedral being leveled and replaced with a library and its sacredness disregarded. Could you justify that?
Varg Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='22 October 2009 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1256217811' post='1989608'] Reversing the question, what makes ground "common" or secular? I trust you would have no problem with a Cathedral being leveled and replaced with a library and its sacredness disregarded. Could you justify that? [/quote]If the Cathederal was out of use and derelict then fine, but if people went there and it was still being used I would probably disagree with it being destroyed and replaced by, say, a mall.
Aloysius Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 what exactly is the argument here? large majorities of the pagans of Europe were converted and therefore wished to reinterpret sites they previously held as sacred through the eyes of their new religion
Sternhauser Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 If the earth moans when you walk on it, or a sacred tree hisses at you as you cut it down, it's probably better to have a Church there. ~Sternhauser
Servus_Mariae Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1256220074' post='1989611'] If the Cathederal was out of use and derelict then fine, but if people went there and it was still being used I would probably disagree with it being destroyed and replaced by, say, a mall. [/quote] I follow. If it would be acceptable to tear down an unused Cathedral and replace it with something else, why would it not be okay to build a Cathedral on a pagan site no longer used as such because of conversions or abandonment? But...you are really trying to illustrate the point that one sacred space is as good as another and therefore any takeover is unjustifiable because of this inherent equality of varied expressions of theism. Am I right in assuming that?
Winchester Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 I justify it by your rules: Survival of the fittest.
cmotherofpirl Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='22 October 2009 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1256222911' post='1989622'] If the earth moans when you walk on it, or a sacred tree hisses at you as you cut it down, it's probably better to have a Church there. ~Sternhauser [/quote] AWESOME thought!
cmotherofpirl Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 06:08 AM' timestamp='1256202526' post='1989584'] I've just found out that some of the first churches were built on sacred pagan ground. I'd like to see any of you justify that. [/quote] First, how can pagans have sacred anything? Second, to prove a point what better way to really sanctify an area than building a truly holy place on top of it? I really don't see an issue.
Varg Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='22 October 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1256230830' post='1989673'] First, how can pagans have sacred anything? Second, to prove a point what better way to really sanctify an area than building a truly holy place on top of it? I really don't see an issue. [/quote]*headdesk*
Winchester Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Sometimes you people are on, sometimes you're off. Leave him to me.
Varg Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='22 October 2009 - 12:17 PM' timestamp='1256228268' post='1989648'] I follow. If it would be acceptable to tear down an unused Cathedral and replace it with something else, why would it not be okay to build a Cathedral on a pagan site no longer used as such because of conversions or abandonment? [/quote]Because they WERE being used. Edited October 22, 2009 by Varg
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 I feel no need to justify it. Pagans are wack.
Winchester Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 (edited) He has no business being upset. He's an atheist. There is no such thing as human dignity in an atheist worldview--there is only the division into strong and weak. Anything else is inconsistent theism of one sort or another. And this is also a transparent attempt to permit him to demonize religion in his own mind because he is so influenced by society that he cannot completely accept his atheism. Edited October 22, 2009 by Winchester
Varg Posted October 22, 2009 Author Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 October 2009 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1256231517' post='1989686'] I feel no need to justify it. Pagans are wack. [/quote]That's rich coming from someone who believes snakes can talk.
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' date='22 October 2009 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1256231683' post='1989689'] He has no business being upset. He's an atheist. There is no such thing as human dignity in an atheist worldview--there is only the division into strong and weak. Anything else is inconsistent theism of one sort or another. And this is also a transparent attempt to permit him to demonize religion in his own mind because he is so influenced by society that he cannot completely accept his atheism. [/quote]
Winchester Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 01:16 PM' timestamp='1256231807' post='1989692'] That's rich coming from someone who believes snakes can talk. [/quote] Like you don't believe in lawyers.
Nihil Obstat Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 [quote name='Varg' date='22 October 2009 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1256231807' post='1989692'] That's rich coming from someone who believes snakes can talk. [/quote] Did you miss your nap time today? FYI, it's a *serpent*, not a snake. Duh.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now